Re: I would like Debian to stop shipping XScreenSaver
Posted: 2016-04-12 19:55
apt-get purge xscreensaver
apt-get install light-locker
and let's move on
apt-get install light-locker
and let's move on
Debian does update the software--just not as often as some people would like.andros705 wrote:I think that debian should include newest xscreensaver in stable distribution, I have already tried it and it works great, there is no bugs and I am aggree that debian should update most of his software.
==> Well, but perhaps you have read me wrong. Because my only issue with this, is that Debian does nothing to tell these users off, before they encounter a sour-puss in the community that tells them to go elsewhere if they want it new and shining. After they've already wasted time in Debian.mor wrote: Try to think about the last part of this sentence with the tractor analogy in mind: "people coming to a tractor dealership looking for a sedan or a minivan or other street car anyway".
That's the error. Debian is a distribution meant to be stable and low maintenance, people looking for the next long awaited feature of their apps are simply in the wrong place.
Now, I understand why one that doesn't fit in the Debian's system would want to change things, but why would Debian and all those who, on the other hand, are with Debian exactly because of the way it is, want to change things?
==> Eh, there are lots of other reasons why I don't like any of the alternatives you are mentioning, and as far as changing the Ubuntu policies, get realmor wrote:And no, alternatives exist. What about Ubuntu and Mint or openSuse and Fedora?
No doctor prescribed Debian to people who want fresher desktops.
If people don't like Ubuntu's (and friends) policies with spyware and other crap like that, wouldn't it make much more sense to try and change Ubuntu's policies rather than mess with Debian's nature?
==> You mean like Debian pleas that we all should use a "stable outdated system(Jessie)" or drop Debian and go somewhere elsemor wrote: and he pleas everyone to either use a "stable outdated system" or drop his program, but not to change the dependency.
I don't disagree with this. Forking it is fine. Also that users change the code. But when you redistribute the package with those changes, it has to be clear that it is a modified version, and that the original developer in no way can be responsible for the package anymore. Nor be expected to offer any kind of support for such modified versions.edbarx wrote:The first day I uploaded my network manager on git.devuan.org, it was immediately forked by another developer. Should I grumble and curse?
A license permitting the forking and editing of code is what it is: anyone who wants to restrict users from modifying code should publish only closed source projects or at least close source only the code he/she doesn't want to be modified.
Publishing source under certain license terms and then unexpectedly turning to users to refrain from some of those license terms, is also unethical, as it can be interpreted as deceptive on the part of the publisher/developer.
As most Debian users ever will read that. They still would bug the developer no matter what.dilberts_left_nut wrote:http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/c ... _changelog
Or let us look at another person who has an independent functioning brain comment on what Stable in the bizarro Debian world actually means:https://www.jwz.org/blog/2016/04/i-woul ... ent-166433
... Getting email about a years-old already-fixed bug is frustrating if it's because the user was simply too lazy to upgrade. But what I think you have all recently learned here is that thats not what's going on. It's not that they're lazy, it's that Debian has gone out of their way to make it difficult for naive users to run code that does not contain years-old bugs.
Even if I just ignored their reports -- or worse, pointed them the delightful and charming people who populate the Debian bug system to have them ignore them for me -- there are still users who are trying to use my works, and who are experiencing bugs that they should not have to experience because they were fixed years ago. That's extremely frustrating. "I already fixed this, thanks again, Debian!"
And this is by Debian's "design".
...
Omg someone with an independent, autonomous brain on here who can exit the gravity of crusty Debian dogma:https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/41085.html
Debian ships an operating system that prides itself on stability. The Debian definition of stability is a very specific one - rather than referring to how often the software crashes or misbehaves, it refers to how often the software changes behaviour. Debian is very reluctant to upgrade software that is part of a stable release, to the extent that developers will attempt to backport individual security fixes to the version they shipped rather than upgrading to a release that contains all those security fixes but also adds a new feature. The argument here is that the new release may also introduce new bugs, and Debian's users desire stability (in the "things don't change" sense) more than new features. ...
spacex wrote: http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php? ... 15#p612799
....
Not that I need it, because I can use testing/unstable, but you can't present something as outdated as Jessie to desktop users, and then warn them about testing/unstable. In that case, Debian should warn desktop users against Debian all together. Actually, I think that Debian should divide into two different releases. One conservative server-edition, and one more current desktop-edition.
I agree with this, the unchanging API is very important to me and one of the main reasons for using Debian.RoyFokker wrote:https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/41085.html
Debian's users desire stability (in the "things don't change" sense) more than new features. ...
so i'm proving it wrong now - one can achieve this with a package called xss - it includes a few binaries that allow you to start all the screensaver programs that come with xscreensaver, and those from "The Really Slick Screensavers port to GLX" (rss-glx), and why not an mplayer video, too. anything. any command, any script.there is not a reasonable alternative that can take all the zillion modules available for xscreensaver. I would have ditched it for something more modern ages ago were it not for that fact, if you want nice screensavers that can do things like allow you to play videos using mplayer as your screensaver, you literally have no other choice (as far as i know, please somebody prove me wrong...)
mor wrote:[...]The way I see these attempts to change how Debian works, is like seeing someone trying to change -say- a tractor into a commuting vehicle.
Let's imagine Debian as a tractor, happily spending its days working the fields with plows and harvesters, then someone comes along, sees it and likes it because it is after all a good machine, that someone then starts using it even to go to his office downtown, but commuting is not as smooth. So he thinks that having different tires and maybe a bigger cabin with backseats for the kids would make it a much better and more practical ride, along with a few modifications to the aerodynamics and maybe different gear ratios, and the shocks and a nicer body, maybe a new paintjob.
Yeah, that's much better now, but it no longer is the tractor it was in the beginning.
You can even picture the analogy the other way around with Debian being a sedan and someone trying to use it in the fields, the point is the same: Debian is what it is and people use it exactly because it is Stable and "outdated" (aka very low maintenance) and that's its forte.
If you change it because you want it to be more apt (pun intended) for a different demographic, then by all means do, make you own distro like many have already and be done with it.
Nobody is forcing users to have Debian as their distro. If they like it but want it different then they want something else. And again, there are literally hundreds of choices out there.[...]